6 ms·

Of course the blame is Elop's. Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. Lowering Nokia's risk by doing an Android p

by fpgeek 14y ago

Of course the blame is Elop's. Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. Lowering Nokia's risk by doing an Android phone or two was a no-brainer. The smarter play was doubling down on Qt. Not just Symbian, Meego and the desktop - we know they could have added Android (demonstrated), iOS (community projects existed and still do) and Windows Phone. And don't say Microsoft wouldn't allow it. Windows Phone was irrelevant and Nokia was Microsoft's few chances to change that. And more than that, Microsoft needed access to Nokia's patents (to keep up the pressure on Android, among other things). Nokia was in the driver's seat and could have written their terms. Instead, they let Microsoft effectively acquire them for peanuts. If Nokia had only kept their options open and jumped on what worked, today's mess was entirely preventable.

berntb 14y ago
>> Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. I agree, but hopefully/probably Nokia got something in the deal making, for shutting down a Linux based competing system.
brudgers 14y ago
Elop's strategic move was to get Nokia out of the Operating Systems business where they were clearly losing - and likely to continue to lose over the short, medium and long terms - and to focus on their core competencies which are those of manufacturing and logistics. The switch to Windows Phone was tactical in that sense. The strategic aspect of the switch was that Microsoft offered a long term partnership, allowed them to liquidate maps, and could provide a clear technology roadmap for their product line. Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen.
- machinagod 14y ago
  >>> Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen. This statement doesn't seem correct to me. Nokia has a vast amount of research on mobile UX, even from before Apple joined the play, probably as no one other company. As a (stellar) example, check out Jan Chipchase's work (http://janchipchase.com/ http://janchipchase.com/) with a ton of in-loco research on mobile phone usage, and many research papers presented - with a particular focus on the non-developed world. In my opinion Nokia suffered from big-company chronic slowness: the current cash-cow was still providing the income, hence all future investment was unfocused, under-funded. PS: A nice question is still how much/if any of the investment of Nokia in the undeveloped world will still be able to bring some returns. Windows Phone completely eschews that...
  - brudgers 14y ago
    Your analysis of UX data is a bit of a "true scotsman," i.e what matters is the exact sort of data Nokia has. Given that this data is based on "five button" interaction with a small screen, it's hard to see that as critical in a world of "large" touchscreen devices.
    - machinagod 14y ago
      I agree with you to a point, but would maintain that a significant amount of behavioural and cultural data coming from the "5 button" research, would also apply to touchscreen devices.
      - reacweb 14y ago
        I have enough computers around me to not need a smartphone. The single feature I need from smartphone is tethering. I am dreaming of cheap 5 button nokia phone (like my current phone) that would provide tethering so that I can use my cheap wifi android tablet anywhere. My 5 button nokia phone looks prehistoric, but it works perfectly and has fantastic autonomy.
        hollerith 14y ago
        >The single feature I need from smartphone is tethering. I am dreaming of cheap 5 button nokia phone (like my current phone) that would provide tethering OK, but the reason tethering is hard is that carriers want to charge extra for it, not because of any decision of Nokia (or any other phone manufacturer)
        ramchip 14y ago
        My cheap Japanese phone can tether -- but the carrier makes a distinction between packets originating from the phone and those from the computer, and they charge extra through the nose for PC packets (100$+ per month if you exceed a few megabytes, in extra to normal phone charges). All this while I can get a dual-mode WiMAX/3G WiFi router that fits in a pocket, has a day of battery life, unlimited data and transfers much faster for 50$/month. The problem isn't the hardware, it's the carriers.
- zarlino 14y ago
  You obviously never used a Nokia N9.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>Lowering Nokia's risk by doing an Android phone or two was a no-brainer Have you looked at Android OEM's financials lately? Samsung is the only one making any profit, HTC is barely ekeing out one, LG, Sony, Motorola etc. are running in losses. And bringing out an Android phone would cut off the $1B/yr lifeline platform support from Microsoft, which Nokia knew it would need in the painful transition. Nokia did approach Google for a similar deal, but Google told them to take a hike. Also, they're licensing maps etc. to Microsoft for a huge amount too. Also, people seem to be ignoring that Nokia's signature cash cow feature phone business is collapsing because of ultracheap Chinese clones and white label phones being dumped into the market. Nokia trying to start their own ecosystem with QT would've been foolish in the face of entrenched competition. I don't understand the notion that QT is some magical technology that's so much leaps and bounds ahead of other GUI APIs like iOS, Android, WinRT etc that developer would automatically flock to it. QT is definitely nice though. In short, Nokia knew that they were going to go through extremely tough times for a couple of years regardless of what they pick, and they chose a partner with deep pockets($60B cash in the bank) rather than going solo.
- biafra 14y ago
  Since when is Nokia licensing Bing maps for their phones for a huge amount of money? Do you have a source for that? Nokia uses gate5 Maps and acquired gate5 AG in late 2006. According to this http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2012/05/24/bing-maps-now-using-nokia-backend-services-for-traffic-and-geocoding.aspx http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2012... there is a joint venture between Nokia and Microsoft/Bing with regards to maps.
  - sorenbs 14y ago
    It's the other way around.
- beagle3 14y ago
  While I agree with your general sentiment, > they chose a partner with deep pockets($60B cash in the bank) Is only half the story. They chose a partner who has a record of being a horrible partner for companies in their condition -- which is in a lot of ways similar to both HP and SGI pre-Windows (good hardware, trying to get out of the OS business, rely on Microsoft). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Belluzzo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Belluzzo So, this partner has a horrible relevant track record, twice. I don't see how Nokia can expect (or could have expected a couple of years ago) to fare better than SGI or HP's high end computing unit did.

by fpgeek 14y ago

berntb 14y ago

>> Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. I agree, but hopefully/probably Nokia got something in the deal making, for shutting down a Linux based competing system.

brudgers 14y ago

Elop's strategic move was to get Nokia out of the Operating Systems business where they were clearly losing - and likely to continue to lose over the short, medium and long terms - and to focus on their core competencies which are those of manufacturing and logistics. The switch to Windows Phone was tactical in that sense. The strategic aspect of the switch was that Microsoft offered a long term partnership, allowed them to liquidate maps, and could provide a clear technology roadmap for their product line. Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen.

machinagod 14y ago
>>> Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen. This statement doesn't seem correct to me. Nokia has a vast amount of research on mobile UX, even from before Apple joined the play, probably as no one other company. As a (stellar) example, check out Jan Chipchase's work (http://janchipchase.com/ http://janchipchase.com/) with a ton of in-loco research on mobile phone usage, and many research papers presented - with a particular focus on the non-developed world. In my opinion Nokia suffered from big-company chronic slowness: the current cash-cow was still providing the income, hence all future investment was unfocused, under-funded. PS: A nice question is still how much/if any of the investment of Nokia in the undeveloped world will still be able to bring some returns. Windows Phone completely eschews that...
- brudgers 14y ago
  Your analysis of UX data is a bit of a "true scotsman," i.e what matters is the exact sort of data Nokia has. Given that this data is based on "five button" interaction with a small screen, it's hard to see that as critical in a world of "large" touchscreen devices.
  - machinagod 14y ago
    I agree with you to a point, but would maintain that a significant amount of behavioural and cultural data coming from the "5 button" research, would also apply to touchscreen devices.
    - reacweb 14y ago
      I have enough computers around me to not need a smartphone. The single feature I need from smartphone is tethering. I am dreaming of cheap 5 button nokia phone (like my current phone) that would provide tethering so that I can use my cheap wifi android tablet anywhere. My 5 button nokia phone looks prehistoric, but it works perfectly and has fantastic autonomy.
      - hollerith 14y ago
        >The single feature I need from smartphone is tethering. I am dreaming of cheap 5 button nokia phone (like my current phone) that would provide tethering OK, but the reason tethering is hard is that carriers want to charge extra for it, not because of any decision of Nokia (or any other phone manufacturer)
      - ramchip 14y ago
        My cheap Japanese phone can tether -- but the carrier makes a distinction between packets originating from the phone and those from the computer, and they charge extra through the nose for PC packets (100$+ per month if you exceed a few megabytes, in extra to normal phone charges). All this while I can get a dual-mode WiMAX/3G WiFi router that fits in a pocket, has a day of battery life, unlimited data and transfers much faster for 50$/month. The problem isn't the hardware, it's the carriers.
zarlino 14y ago
You obviously never used a Nokia N9.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

>Lowering Nokia's risk by doing an Android phone or two was a no-brainer Have you looked at Android OEM's financials lately? Samsung is the only one making any profit, HTC is barely ekeing out one, LG, Sony, Motorola etc. are running in losses. And bringing out an Android phone would cut off the $1B/yr lifeline platform support from Microsoft, which Nokia knew it would need in the painful transition. Nokia did approach Google for a similar deal, but Google told them to take a hike. Also, they're licensing maps etc. to Microsoft for a huge amount too. Also, people seem to be ignoring that Nokia's signature cash cow feature phone business is collapsing because of ultracheap Chinese clones and white label phones being dumped into the market. Nokia trying to start their own ecosystem with QT would've been foolish in the face of entrenched competition. I don't understand the notion that QT is some magical technology that's so much leaps and bounds ahead of other GUI APIs like iOS, Android, WinRT etc that developer would automatically flock to it. QT is definitely nice though. In short, Nokia knew that they were going to go through extremely tough times for a couple of years regardless of what they pick, and they chose a partner with deep pockets($60B cash in the bank) rather than going solo.

biafra 14y ago
Since when is Nokia licensing Bing maps for their phones for a huge amount of money? Do you have a source for that? Nokia uses gate5 Maps and acquired gate5 AG in late 2006. According to this http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2012/05/24/bing-maps-now-using-nokia-backend-services-for-traffic-and-geocoding.aspx http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2012... there is a joint venture between Nokia and Microsoft/Bing with regards to maps.
- sorenbs 14y ago
  It's the other way around.
beagle3 14y ago
While I agree with your general sentiment, > they chose a partner with deep pockets($60B cash in the bank) Is only half the story. They chose a partner who has a record of being a horrible partner for companies in their condition -- which is in a lot of ways similar to both HP and SGI pre-Windows (good hardware, trying to get out of the OS business, rely on Microsoft). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Belluzzo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Belluzzo So, this partner has a horrible relevant track record, twice. I don't see how Nokia can expect (or could have expected a couple of years ago) to fare better than SGI or HP's high end computing unit did.